EXERCISE MEASURE OUTCOME IN THE CHOOSING HEALTHY ACTIONS TOGETHER (CHAT) CLINIC: AN ONTARIO PAEDIATRIC BARIATRIC NETWORK PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ontario Paediatric Bariatric Network (OPBN) attempts to streamline and standardize care, while translating evidence-based practices across the province. The Choosing Healthy Actions Together (CHAT) clinic at our institution is a member of the OPBN. The FITNESSGRAMs Progressive Aerobic Capacity Endurance Run (PACER) has been validated to assess aerobic fitness in children, and is routinely measured in the clinic along with markers of physiological health, and anthropometric data. OBJECTIVES: Retrospective review of physiological performance in the CHAT clinic over a one-year period (June 2015 to August 2016). DESIGN/METHODS: Children (ages 1 to 18 years) attending the CHAT clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included demographic data, anthropometrics, PACER data, and attendance at clinic. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and pair-wise comparison of means by t-test. RESULTS: Data were available on 54 patients (28 males, 52%). Mean (SD) age, BMI and BMI-Z score at intake was 10.6 (2.6) years, 29.7 (5.7) kg/m^2 and 2.31 (0.38), respectively. BMI-Z score did not change over 1 year (p=0.32). Twenty-meter sprint time was faster at 6 months compared to intake, (mean difference 0.24 seconds [95% CI 0.09 to 0.38 seconds]; P = 0.003), but not at one year. There was a trend in improved PACER score from 6 months to one year (mean difference 2.0 runs [95% CI -0.1 to 4.1 runs]; P = 0.06). Of children completing intake, only one dropped out. One-year data is pending for 34 children. CONCLUSION: Gains in physiological performance, but not BMI score, were realized in a regional paediatric obesity clinic. Follow-up of complete data over the one-year period is needed. Future research should explore the impact of physiologic performance as an obesity outcome in children in obesity clinics. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have nothing to disclose. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of financial support. There was no external funding for this study. Ethics: The study was passed through the ethics mechanism at the study site institution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".